No abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic is the reason why humanity is paying more attention to the importance of regular and rigorous handwashing. Interestingly, in the nineteenth century, regular and rigorous handwashing was a key (and controversial) solution proposed by the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis to cut drastically cases of puerperal fever. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever-a crucial historical scientific controversy-can be used as a springboard to promote university student argumentation. Our study was inspired by the fact that the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) stressed that more efforts and resources should be invested in promoting argumentation as an essential component for scientifically literate citizens in twenty-first century societies. However, nowadays, argument and debate are virtually absent from university science education. The data was derived from 124 undergraduates' (64 females and 60 males, 15-30 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the articulation of this historical controversy with decision-making, small-group debate, and whole-class debate activities can be useful for promoting undergraduates' argumentation. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of an argumentation curriculum for higher education.

Being aware of the importance of thinking critically about wrong scientific information presented in news articles is an important form of scientific media literacy. However, little is known about how undergraduates evaluate wrong scientific information presented in news articles. This article discusses the effect of a teaching-learning sequence (TLS) in promoting students' awareness of the importance of thinking critically about false or inaccurate scientific information presented in news articles. It examines the written and oral arguments produced by 141 university students (73 females and 68 males, 16-22 years old) in Colombia during a complete TLS supervised by the same instructor. The data used in this analysis was collected from students' written responses, and audio and video recordings. The first aim of this investigation was to provide evidence of how undergraduates evaluate wrong scientific information presented in news articles when purposely no definition of misleading information is given. The second was to assess the effectiveness of the TLS in promoting students' awareness of the importance of thinking critically about wrong scientific information presented in news articles. The findings show that not all participants perceived misleading information in the same way, and students usually overestimate the truth or certainty that can be attributed to scientific information communicated in news articles.

No abstract

No abstract